- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8868 CRL.RP No. 1169 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1169 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ELIZABETH P.M, S/O VIJAY N P, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, JUNIOR HEALTH WOMEN ASSISTANT, NAGUVINAHALLI SUB CENTRE NO.311, GOVERNMENT QUARTERS, NAGUVINAHALLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 477. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED AMEER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. S. SATHEESHA, S/O SRI SRIKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT D NO.13, B BLOCK, NEW BLOCK EXTENSION, KUMBARAKIOPPAL, DEVARAJ MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 002. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BHANU PRAKASH H V, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.12.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU IN C.C.NO.188/2010 AND THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2022 PASSED BY STHE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU IN CRLA..NO.281/2015, THAT THE Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8868 CRL.RP No. 1169 of 2022 CASE BE REMANDED TO TRIAL COURT FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER Accused is before this Court in this Criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.188/2010 dated 26.12.2015 by the Court of II Additional First Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru and the judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.281/2015 dated 30.07.2022 by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru. 2. Heard the learned Amicus curiae for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent. 3. Respondent had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I.Act) before the Jurisdictional Court of Magistrate at Mysuru in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8868 CRL.RP No. 1169 of 2022 C.C.No.188/2010. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner who is acquainted to him had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) and towards repayment of the said amount, the cheque-in-question bearing No.712497 dated 23.05.2006 drawn on Syndicate Bank, J.P.Nagar, Mysuru was issued in his favour. The said cheque was dishonoured by the drawee bank, when presented for realisation with a shara 'funds insufficient'. The respondent thereafter got issued legal notice to the petitioner which was duly served on her. However, since the petitioner had failed to repay the amount covered under the cheque-in-question, in spite of service of legal notice, the respondent had initiated proceedings against her before the Trial Court in C.C.No.188/2010 for offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. In the said proceedings, the petitioner had claimed to be tried. The respondent had therefore examined himself before the Trial Court as PW.1 and had got marked four documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. However, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8868 CRL.RP No. 1169 of 2022 on behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was placed on record. The Trial Court vide impugned order convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.3,97,500/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninty Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.188/2010 dated 26.12.2015 has been confirmed in Crl.A.No.281/2015 by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru by judgment and order dated 30.07.2022. It is under these circumstances, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned Amicus curiae for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application before the Appellate Court under Section 391 of Cr.PC with a prayer to refer the cheque-in-question to a handwriting expert for verifying the signature and handwriting found in the said instrument. The Appellate Court has erred in rejecting the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8868 CRL.RP No. 1169 of 2022 said application. He submits that the petitioner and the respondent are strangers and the petitioner's estranged husband had stolen her cheque and handed over the same to the respondent, who was misused the cheque. Accordingly, he prays to allow this petition. 5. According to the respondent/complainant petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) from him in the month of February, 2006 and towards repayment of the said amount, the cheque-in-question was issued in his favour. The said cheque when presented for realisation was dishonoured by the drawee bank with a shara 'funds insufficient'. Undisputedly, the statutory legal notice issued on behalf of the respondent to the petitioner after the cheque was dishonoured was served on her. The petitioner has not replied to the said legal notice. Before the Trial Court the petitioner neither disputed her signature found in the cheque-in-question nor had she disputed that the cheque was drawn on the bank account maintained by her - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8868 CRL.RP No. 1169 of 2022 in Syndicate Bank, J.P.Nagar Branch, Mysuru. Therefore, a presumption arose against the petitioner as provided under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the N.I.Act. Unless the petitioner rebuts the said presumption by putting forward a probable defence, she is liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 6. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner has not set up any defence. Therefore, the presumption that arose against her stood un-rebutted and the Trial Court was therefore fully justified in convicting and sentencing her for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. It is only before the Appellate Court, an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 391 of Cr.PC with a prayer to refer the cheque-in-question to a handwriting expert for the purpose of verifying and comparing her signature and handwriting found in the cheque-in-question. The said application was dismissed by the Appellate Court; As against the said order, petitioner had approached this - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8868 CRL.RP No. 1169 of 2022 Court in the Crl.RP.No.1139/2019 which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 27.08.2021. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below. The scope of this Court in exercise of this revisional jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts is very narrow. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this Criminal revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. The Criminal revision petition is dismissed. ii. The services of learned Amicus curiae is placed on record, and his fee is fixed at Rs.15,000/-. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KVR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29